I’m glad you referenced one of my favorite films, THE STUNT MAN.  It may be (from what I’ve read) that the forthcoming John Cusack anti-war film WAR,INC. may buck the trend.

I’m glad you referenced one of my favorite films, THE STUNT MAN.  It may be (from what I’ve read) that the forthcoming John Cusack anti-war film WAR,INC. may buck the trend.

I tend to forget how much I like The Stunt Man in between viewings. I always remember how much I like O’Toole in it and how much I don’t like the musical score.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the film, but the mere fact that War, Inc. is being distributed by First Look International precludes much chance of it breaking the box office hoodoo on these movies. The only First Look film that’s played theatrically here that I can remember is Paris, Je T’Aime—a terrific movie, but not exactly a huge success.

I love THE STUNT MAN!

I think that at this time we can only hope for a critical success for WAR, INC.  Every Iraq film that Ken mentioned has not been very good.

A couple more to mention.  Nick Cage had about a year of clarity and made some good films, including the excellent LORD OF WAR.  Also next week is one that I’ve been dying to see for years, William Klein’s MR. FREEDOM, part of a new Criterion collection of his films.

Lord of War struck me as about 80% a great movie and 20% really bad, but it’s certainly more interesting than any of the Iraq pictures mentioned. The closest thing I can think of to a good film on the topic is Mike Nichols’ equally little-seen Charlie Wilson’s War, but it only kind of qualifies.

Your idea that an anti-war film must have some distance from the war being portrayed onscreen is interesting.  I agree with you that this distance probably raises the quality of the overall film and certainly makes it easier to swallow for a public at least partly disillusioned with the perpetuation of the fighting and its expense—in lives and dollars.  But it makes me wonder WHY an anti-war film message can’t—or simply hasn’t yet—reached the masses or the critics during the war it features or in its build-up or immediate aftermath.  What or who is not ready yet?  The message, which is universal and timeless?  The filmmakers, who, as you’ve written, often take a moralizing, paternalistic tone?  Or the audience?

what about Three Kings?

Thank you for reminding me how much I loved THE STUNT MAN, too. Have to dust it of and give it another look.

I think you have it exactly- anti-war movies don’t get made during the actual “conflict”. And if they do get made, they aren’t embraced. Which is a bit of mystery to me. I can understand the hawks staying away in droves. But not those opposed to any ill-advised exercise we are involved in. Either the films are just mediocre, or it’s just to painful to watch . Not quite sure which.

I do think ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT should be required viewing every year or so. Might just stop some of the madness.

O Russell’s “Three Kings” did a pretty good job transmitting topical anti-war sentiment, having made a respectable $60+ million Box Office-noteworthy in this context for having come at what turned out to be about the half-way point between the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (i.e., Gulf War! Part Deux). So, in this sense, there was a bit of retrospect—and foreshadowing of things to come.

Criticizing America’s foreign policy is not unlike picking on your kid brother—you can make fun of him and complain about his ways, but as soon as someone else does it you rise to his defense. People don’t want to see their brother, or their country, put down in the midst of conflict. Remember Jane Fonda? Her best laid plans didn’t go so well.

We can’t underestimate the impact of international marketing of American movies, either—isn’t it clever marketing from a commercial point-of-view to open an anti-war Amercian film in Europe and the like; at least in the case of the current Iraqi war? “Lions for Lambs” only made $15+ million domestic & $46+ million foreign. “In the Valley of Elah” made $6+ million domestic & $20+ million foreign. On the other hand, “Charlie Wilson’s War”—$66+ million domestic & $46+ million foreign. You see where I’m going with this…

Of course, in my humble opinion, one of the greatest—and most distinctive—of all anti-war movies is Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove,” (1964) which I’m surprised wasn’t mentioned in this piece (I know, one can’t mention every single anti-war movie ever made). To make a black comedy that satarizes nuclear fallout during the height of the Cold War was about as bold and unthinkable a statement as any American filmmaker has ever made. American military history being what it is, the film holds up extremely well to repeated viewings (“Genetlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!”).

Nice piece. Thought provoking.

But it makes me wonder WHY an anti-war film message can’t—or simply hasn’t yet—reached the masses or the critics during the war it features or in its build-up or immediate aftermath.  What or who is not ready yet?  The message, which is universal and timeless?  The filmmakers, who, as you’ve written, often take a moralizing, paternalistic tone?  Or the audience?

Well, that really is the question, but it’s not one that I can answer. Critically, I do think it has a lot to do with the fact that these movies just aren’t that good. In a way, I’m glad to see that, because I distrust films that are embraced by a particular sector just because they endorse a shared belief. (So-called faith-based films are a prime example where you can see mediocrity embraced just because it’s Christian-themed.)

Where the public is concerned it’s a separate issue. I think a lot of it has to do with a simple desire for escapism. That’s a relative thing, since as depressing and heavy-handed as I found Rendition to be in so many instances, it depressed me less than Alvin and the Chipmunks. There’s a thin line, I guess, between escapism and willingly lobotomizing yourself for two hours.

I think overkill has a lot to do with it, too. That can put you off anything—or it can me. Most years I get asked to review part of the offerings at the Amnesty International Film Festival. Every year I tell them to weed the selections down to a tractable number of titles they think are really deserving. But no matter how weeded down the selection is by the end of it all, I’m about ready to go out and oppress a third world country single-handedly just from the sense of being beaten over the head with messages I already know.

I can understand the hawks staying away in droves. But not those opposed to any ill-advised exercise we are involved in. Either the films are just mediocre, or it’s just to painful to watch . Not quite sure which.

I really think it’s a combination, but let’s throw something else into the mix here. You and I are, I think, near the same age. That means that during the Vietnam era we got our news from three networks, whatever papers were available to us, and the big weeklies like Life and Look. Anti-war movies—even embracing the old ones like Duck Soup (our generation made that film popular)—were something we felt a need for. Now, there’s news 24 hours a day 7 days a week. There’s the internet and constant updates online—not to mention e-mails (sometimes several a day) from any and every online petition we’ve ever signed. We are bombarded with news that once was more sparingly doled out. I think we may collectively be suffering from an information overload.

O Russell’s “Three Kings” did a pretty good job transmitting topical anti-war sentiment, having made a respectable $60+ million Box Office-noteworthy in this context for having come at what turned out to be about the half-way point between the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (i.e., Gulf War! Part Deux). So, in this sense, there was a bit of retrospect—and foreshadowing of things to come.

That’s pretty much what I’d have said. I’d considered throwing this title into the mix, but felt I really needed to watch it again before I could fairly do so.

Criticizing America’s foreign policy is not unlike picking on your kid brother—you can make fun of him and complain about his ways, but as soon as someone else does it you rise to his defense. People don’t want to see their brother, or their country, put down in the midst of conflict. Remember Jane Fonda? Her best laid plans didn’t go so well.

You may be on to something. It’s not a sentiment I share personally, but I can see where some people could feel this way. Then again, I have no real gripe with Jane Fonda, despite the wrong-headedness (or extreme naivete) of what she did.

We can’t underestimate the impact of international marketing of American movies, either—isn’t it clever marketing from a commercial point-of-view to open an anti-war Amercian film in Europe and the like; at least in the case of the current Iraqi war? “Lions for Lambs” only made $15+ million domestic & $46+ million foreign. “In the Valley of Elah” made $6+ million domestic & $20+ million foreign.

It’s still debatable marketing. Those figures are not enough to have put these films in the plus column. Remember that the studio sees approximately 55% of those numbers. With production costs what they are today, that’s tepid at best.

Of course, in my humble opinion, one of the greatest—and most distinctive—of all anti-war movies is Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove,” (1964) which I’m surprised wasn’t mentioned in this piece (I know, one can’t mention every single anti-war movie ever made). To make a black comedy that satarizes nuclear fallout during the height of the Cold War was about as bold and unthinkable a statement as any American filmmaker has ever made.

An American filmmaker working, it should be noted, from the relative safety of England. (And, yes, the same can be said of Richard Lester.) I try to shy away from mentioning Dr. Strangelove for the simple reason that I have a very biased and personal distaste for the film—one that I’ve managed to work around to some degree, but I’m not comfortable with it. The film frankly depresses the hell out of me. I’d say it’s a generational thing—and personally, it is—but a lot of my contemporaries don’t have the issues with it I do. Let me explain briefly. I was born in 1954. This means I was very young and very impressionable at the “duck and cover” age. All that civil defense indoctrination left a mark—especially after my class got to tour a fallout shelter that was within walking distance of the school. I must have been 7 at the time, but I remember the mounting horror of it all—especially when they told us that, no, this wasn’t where we went in case of a nuclear attack. This was a private facility. Where then were we to go? Well, there wasn’t really an answer. There wasn’t even a school basement (basements being a rarity in Florida). At least they stopped short of telling us that since we weren’t all that far from Cape Canaveral and two large airforce bases, the point was probably moot. When the film came out (I didn’t see it first run), the very concept scared the hell out of me. When I saw it later and people were laughing hysterically at Slim Pickens, I was merely frozen in a kind of stunned terror. The upshot is simply that it’s not a movie I deal with too often.

“The Stunt Man” FTW!

I’m going to fish that out of the box of loose VHS tapes in the basement and watch that again this afternoon as well. Thanks for the reminder, Ken!

Ken,

I can readily identify with your early years and their impact on watching DR. STRANGELOVE.  I was born in the early 50s, spent elementary school years in Miami and Key Marathon, and recall all too well ‘duck and cover’ drills (even then, I knew that simply cowering under a wooden school desk was stupid).  Did you by chance identify as much as I did with the John Goodman comedy MATINEE?

Did you by chance identify as much as I did with the John Goodman comedy MATINEE?

I think I would have identified with it more had I been born two or three years earlier, but it certainly had relevant moments for me.

I recently saw Peckinpah’s “Cross of Iron” and found it as good as any antiwar movie and better than most.

William Klein’s MR FREEDOM is coming out tomorrow, and is a must see.  Mr. Freedom is a brash, pro-American anti-Commie bigot who shoots first and asks questions never.  He is sent on a mission to save France from China, but the French don’t want him.  The film is a late-60s pop art mess, but very   very enjoyable and eerily shadows some recent knee-jerk reactions to the French in 2004.

I’ve read about this film for years and am happy to finally see it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Ufp02FJnuU&feature=related

I recently saw Peckinpah’s “Cross of Iron” and found it as good as any antiwar movie and better than most.

It’s one I’ve never seen, but if memory serves, it conforms to the pattern of being made in peacetime (isn’t it slightly post-Vietnam?) and dealing with an earlier war in any case (WWII).

William Klein’s MR FREEDOM is coming out tomorrow, and is a must see.

I have a hunch I need to see this film (along with Southland Tales, albeit for different reasons).

“I have a hunch I need to see this film (along with Southland Tales, albeit for different reasons).”

It would be a perfect Courtyard presentation (hint hint).

It would be a perfect Courtyard presentation (hint hint).

Assuming Carlos wasn’t run over (repeatedly) by angry Salo viewers.

I think the best anti-war films are the ones that get their message across without ever seeming to lecture. “Full Metal Jacket” is a good example.

I think the best anti-war films are the ones that get their message across without ever seeming to lecture.

I don’t know if those are invariably the best, but they’re certainly the most effective. The risk, of course, is that the film may be taken the wrong way.

“The key to all this anti-war creativity is that all of these films were made in a time of domestic peace. You’ll find less such films as World War II draws nearer, and you’ll find no anti-war films at all during World War II itself.”

So I’m reading Robert Mitchum’s biography, by Lee Server—‘Baby, I Don’t Care’—and I come across this passage on page 88-89 about THE STORY OF G.I. JOE, released in 1945:

    “THE STORY OF G.I. JOE” contains no flag- 
    waving, no self-rightiousness. War is
    presented in humanistic terms as a dangerous
    and unbearable endeavor that will more than
    likely destroy you. One by one the
    characters in G.I. JOE lose their lives or,
    in the case of Sergeant Warnicki, their
    minds. Having little connection to the
    countless propaganda films that preceded it,
    G.I. JOE was a movie that offered the armed
    services ‘no recruitment value.’ Young boys
    would not be rushing to join up upon seeing
    this one. It was purley and simply an
    antiwar film, a daring approach by Wellman
    and Cowan with the war still very much in
    progress at the time of shooting.”

Can this assessment be accurate?  Either way, THE STORY OF G.I. JOE just moved to the top of my list of movies I need to see.

Have you seen it?

As an aside, I didn’t know that Mitchum wrote and produced a movie made in Asheville in 1958—THUNDER ROAD. Another must-see going onto my list.

The biography is quite entertaining. When Mitchum started out in movies he appeared in 19 of them—in 1943 alone!

Can this assessment be accurate?  Either way, THE STORY OF G.I. JOE just moved to the top of my list of movies I need to see.

It’s years and years since I saw the film, but I’d call the assessment accurate, but overstated a bit. If memory serves, it doesn’t glamorize war (unusual during WWII), but I don’t know if I’d call it outright anti-war.

Ken,

I have always loved your reviews because we seem to have similar tastes. Trust me when I say that I will eat my young if you feel Cross Of Iron is a waste of your time.

The novel the film is based on was written by a German veteran after he returned home from Siberia in the 50’s.

I saw it in the theatres when I was 13 and I have never forgotten the looks on the faces of the exiting patrons.

I have always loved your reviews because we seem to have similar tastes. Trust me when I say that I will eat my young if you feel Cross Of Iron is a waste of your time.

Nothing so drastic is called for! You have, in any case, convinced me to give it a look. Thank you.